Gun control?

I know my poll question is kind of loose. So let me define it.
Gun control as being how hard it is to get a gun and where it can be taken?

Actually. I kind of suck. I don't even know gun control in my country that well. I have an idea of how gun control, well in my universe it is more like weapon control, should be done. No one I know really disagrees with me. So I figured a place like this would likely have a much more diverse set of opinions.

The premise in my world is something like this.
"A permit is a sign of trust. A sign of trust is invaid if it has conditions. So if we give you a permit, then you are allowed to carry that gun anywhere. Hospital, kiddergarden, college, airport? Yes to all. If we didn't trust you in any of these locations then we wouldn't trust you at all and would deny the permit."

While I posted in the longue debate room. So the topic is more general gun control. I am curious if anyone thinks the above position is stupid and if so why? Thanks.

Edit: Crap. On phone, just noticed I typoed the poll. Oh well. I tried but I can't edit it. lol

I wouldn't support the idea that being allowed to have a gun somewhere means that it's OK to have a gun anywhere. I don't see the permit as being a psychological gesture that must be done wholeheartedly and generously, but instead as a governmental acceptance of a certain risk in order to grant citizens certain benefits, which should be done grudgingly and carefully.

A gun at a national park during hunting season has a legitimate benefit to the citizen carrying it, and a limited risk. A gun inside security at the airport (and thus potentially carried onto the plane) has minimal legitimate benefit to the citizen carrying it (the only legitimate benefit that I can see is the ability to avoid checking luggage when carrying a gun to a place where it might be legitimately used), and a huge risk. A gun in a mall similarly has no appreciable legitimate use, and substantial risk. And so on.

As for gun control, in the context of the US, I would be happiest if we amended the Constitution to have a perfectly clear position. I'm uncomfortable with passing laws--laws that I would otherwise support--that I feel are of dubious Constitutionality. (And, no, I'm not debating the Constitutional issues in any detail. Among other things, we'd have to debate for six months about the meaning that people in a specific era attached to the word "militia." And the phrase "well-regulated.")

I wouldn't support the idea that being allowed to have a gun somewhere means that it's OK to have a gun anywhere. I don't see the permit as being a psychological gesture that must be done wholeheartedly and generously, but instead as a governmental acceptance of a certain risk in order to grant citizens certain benefits, which should be done grudgingly and carefully.

A gun at a national park during hunting season has a legitimate benefit to the citizen carrying it, and a limited risk. A gun inside security at the airport (and thus potentially carried onto the plane) has minimal legitimate benefit to the citizen carrying it (the only legitimate benefit that I can see is the ability to avoid checking luggage when carrying a gun to a place where it might be legitimately used), and a huge risk. A gun in a mall similarly has no appreciable legitimate use, and substantial risk. And so on.

As for gun control, in the context of the US, I would be happiest if we amended the Constitution to have a perfectly clear position. I'm uncomfortable with passing laws--laws that I would otherwise support--that I feel are of dubious Constitutionality. (And, no, I'm not debating the Constitutional issues in any detail. Among other things, we'd have to debate for six months about the meaning that people in a specific era attached to the word "militia." And the phrase "well-regulated.")

Except maybe that self defense is a legitament use and that can happen anywhere. lol.

Though I suppose since your awesome I am curious on your thoughts a bit more if you permit me to pick your brain.

Which is Valorie, since you have read her stories first chapter. There is a point where Valorie is given a weapon and asked by her family to take it with her at all times. Because there is a real posbility that she might be attacked by an unknown force at an unknown time. Valorie feels wierd about this but does so. Which means there is a scene where she is at her college in a classroom with a weapon on her. Which seems like something USA would scream at. Yet she isn't a danerous person. She has no intent to hurt anyone.

Would you not want to be in a class with her? Or do you think she shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon?

Would you not want to be in a class with her? Or do you think she shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon?

Click to expand...

In the real world, I would be opposed to allowing weapons in college classrooms, yes. If they were legal, then the fact that she had one wouldn't make her, specifically, a problem for me as long as she struck me as reasonably calm and stable. My opposition to allowing them would be out of the fear that someone who's not reasonably calm and stable might carry one.

In the real world, I would be opposed to allowing weapons in college classrooms, yes. If they were legal, then the fact that she had one wouldn't make her, specifically, a problem for me as long as she struck me as reasonably calm and stable. My opposition to allowing them would be out of the fear that someone who's not reasonably calm and stable might carry one.

Click to expand...

But wouldn't someone that isn't reasonable calm or stable just ignore the rule? If there is no rule, wouldn't the good people with weapons mean the unstable one might be afraid?

When you stop and think about it. This is what my mind says.

Someone that takes a gun to school to do bad things is ressured by gun control laws. He knows no one else is armed but if an unknown number of people could also have weapons. It becomes a fight. A fight he might be scared he loses.

So that calm collected girl with a weapon might be the one that saves you from the unstable one.

So that calm collected girl with a weapon might be the one that saves you from the unstable one.

Right?

Click to expand...

Not really, IMO. It's unlikely that that calm collected girl has taken classes in hostage negotiation, sharpshooting, or other law enforcement skills. If a place needs armed guards, it should have trained competent armed guards. If it doesn't need armed guards, it shouldn't have a bunch of people who have guns and kinda sorta barely know how to use them.

It would be nice if we could use scientific research to answer this question but apparently the GOP is afraid of what the results might be.

In the tradition of Exxon's campaign against climate change science by manufacturing doubt, the NRA thwart's the research into preventing gun violence claiming the research itself is nothing but an excuse to manufacture propaganda.

Dr. Fred Rivara, a professor of Pediatrics and Epidemiology at the University of Washington at Seattle Children's Hospital, has been involved with injury research for 30 years. He was part of a team that researched gun violence back in the 1990s and personally saw the chilling effects of the NRA’s lobbying arm. Rivara says that the NRA accused the CDC of trying to use science to promote gun control.

“As a result of that, many, many people stopped doing gun research, [and] the number of publications on firearm violence decreased dramatically," he told The Takeaway in April. "It was really chilling in terms of our ability to conduct research on this very important problem.”

In 2013, some 34,000 Americans died from gunshot wounds. So Takeaway Washington Correspondent Todd Zwillich decided to ask House Speaker John Boehner why his party is trying to block research on gun violence.

“The CDC is there to look at diseases that need to be dealt with to protect public health,” Boehner said at a press conference last week. “I’m sorry, but a gun is not a disease. Guns don’t kill people — people do. And when people use weapons in a horrible way, we should condemn the actions of the individual and not blame the action on some weapon.”

Click to expand...

But does the CDC research blame the public health issue of gun violence on the weapons themselves?

“The original concern from the National Rifle Association back in 1996, which Dr. Rivara mentioned, made that very implication,” says Zwillich. “The NRA complained to Congress that the CDC was using the results of its research to essentially advocate for gun control. They called it propaganda. And back at that time, Congress slashed the CDC’s funding by the exact amount that was used for gun-related public health research.”

Click to expand...

Either the members of the GOP are so ignorant about how one goes about researching a public health issue, or they know full well they are pandering to the NRA and don't care how stupid their arguments sound.

For example, if the CDC finds better safety locks will prevent X number of kids getting and using a parent's gun, that's not blaming the gun. It's saying the evidence shows adults are not responsible, they need help.

In the 1800s' London cholera epidemic, when telling people the water from the Broad St pump was causing cholera, that wasn't enough. Dr Snow, whose epidemiological research revealed the source of the cholera, convinced public health officials to remove the pump handle. It's one of my favorite stories in history. That's what public health research does, it looks at causes and prevention, no politics should be involved.

No wonder the CDC's report into preventing gun morbidity and mortality found there was inadequate research to draw a conclusion.

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research....

In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.

Click to expand...

While I am curious about who the "independent nonfederal task force" was sponsored by, I accept that too much of the research is likely not done in a neutral way on both sides of the argument. But when the GOP bans the CDC from doing proper unbiased research, once again we see the right wing suppressing science.

It would be nice if we could use scientific research to answer this question but apparently the GOP is afraid of what the results might be.

In the tradition of Exxon's campaign against climate change science by manufacturing doubt, the NRA thwart's the research into preventing gun violence claiming the research itself is nothing but an excuse to manufacture propaganda.

But does the CDC research blame the public health issue of gun violence on the weapons themselves?

Either the members of the GOP are so ignorant about how one goes about researching a public health issue, or they know full well they are pandering to the NRA and don't care how stupid their arguments sound.

For example, if the CDC finds better safety locks will prevent X number of kids getting and using a parent's gun, that's not blaming the gun. It's saying the evidence shows adults are not responsible, they need help.

In the 1800s' London cholera epidemic, when telling people the water from the Broad St pump was causing cholera, that wasn't enough. Dr Snow, whose epidemiological research revealed the source of the cholera, convinced public health officials to remove the pump handle. It's one of my favorite stories in history. That's what public health research does, it looks at causes and prevention, no politics should be involved.

No wonder the CDC's report into preventing gun morbidity and mortality found there was inadequate research to draw a conclusion.

While I am curious about who the "independent nonfederal task force" was sponsored by, I accept that too much of the research is likely not done in a neutral way on both sides of the argument. But when the GOP bans the CDC from doing proper unbiased research, once again we see the right wing suppressing science.

Click to expand...

Wow. Nice reply. Sadly my knowledge is not well equipt to respond to any part of it. lol. Your way ahead of me. Still got to like the nice reply.

What it means is, instead of using evidence, and proper research to address a serious public health problem, the well financed gun lobby is preventing us from preventing the needless death of yet another mother's child.

In Switzerland, every able bodied man between the ages 18 & 45, is required by law to have a gun (I assume mental issues disqualifies). These guns are military issue (which is why the stats only show 45% of Switz owning guns). And Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

So, maybe Americans should look to see what's wrong with their society, instead of using guns as the cheap excuse clause.

In Switzerland, every able bodied man between the ages 18 & 45, is required by law to have a gun (I assume mental issues disqualifies). These guns are military issue (which is why the stats only show 45% of Switz owning guns). And Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

So, maybe Americans should look to see what's wrong with their society, instead of using guns as the cheap excuse clause.

Click to expand...

I was defining strict as hard to get and not allowed to be taken in a number of places.

Other than that no argument. If you read the section about the policy in my story you would see I am not about blaming the weapon. lol

In Switzerland, every able bodied man between the ages 18 & 45, is required by law to have a gun (I assume mental issues disqualifies). These guns are military issue (which is why the stats only show 45% of Switz owning guns). And Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

So, maybe Americans should look to see what's wrong with their society, instead of using guns as the cheap excuse clause.

Click to expand...

Because of course the small homogenous population of Switzerland is comparable to the very large and very diverse population in the US.

The gun problem in the U.S. is largely a cultural problem that will take a long time to correct, if there's ever a will to correct it or a desire to look at long term solutions instead of immediate reactions on both sides any time there is a mass shooting. In the mean time, common sense legislation to close some background check loopholes and try to ensure that people with certain mental illnesses can't access weapons would be a good start.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Click to expand...

Allow me to lecture you all briefly on early American history. Before this thing was written down, the 13 colonies didn't have their own militia. Their entire security and protection was on behalf of the British army (ie, belonging to the British crown.) They had no well-regulated militia of their own. Since the Americans had just booted this army off (with the help of Spain and France, of course) they kind of had no standing army. Also, who would protect the individual states when the big guys are busy elsewhere? For instance, let's say a few disgruntled people in Rhode Island got testy and sparked a mini-rebellion to carve their own country out of that state. Well, if Rhode Island didn't have any militia force, they're kind of screwed don't you think? I think the Founders meant that each state was allowed its own militia, basically its own defense group so that if shit hit in the windmills, they could fend for themselves for a bit until the larger United States army could do something about it. In my hypothetical example, Rhode Island could hold off the rebels long enough for the US to mobilize a bigger force to take them down.

At the founding, the second amendment didn't apply to State governments. They could have as strict or loose gun laws as they wanted. They didn't want the federal government butting in, and the second amended constrained the federal government.

One problem that would arise in a system where some people are permitted weapons and others not, it that of how the decision would be made. Would someone just say, 'you look like a reasonable person, you can have a gun'? Would there be an extensive psychological investigation to establish if there is any hidden behavioural or mental issues? Who would pay for that? What if the results were inconclusive? What would happen is someone believed themselves unfairly judged? How would the system guard against discrimination?

One method could be to make liability insurance compulsory for gun owners. I'm sure the insurance companies, being accustomed to dealing with issue so risk, would come up with something.

Is it bad I didn't search first? I am kind bad at searching. Then again, while I was fine with general thoughts I kind of opened it to see if anyone wanted to play devils advocate to the premise I listed. Is that a fair reason to open a thread? I hope I wasn't being rude. I am sorry!

Since this weapons control system is intended to form an element in a fictional story, I'd try to think of something that seems good in theory, but is appallingly bad in practice. If it can seem plausible enough to be adopted by a society, and be totally screwed up in half a dozen different ways, it would make an interesting story element. You could have all foreigners denied weapons permits because their identity documents are incompatible with the system and there's nothing anyone can do about it. A rich kid with a history of violence and mental illness can get a permit because his father has paid a medical professional to produce a report that gives the 'correct' results. Females are sometimes denied permits because one official mistakenly believes them too emotional to be trusted with arms.

Since this weapons control system is intended to form an element in a fictional story, I'd try to think of something that seems good in theory, but is appallingly bad in practice. If it can seem plausible enough to be adopted by a society, and be totally screwed up in half a dozen different ways, it would make an interesting story element. You could have all foreigners denied weapons permits because their identity documents are incompatible with the system and there's nothing anyone can do about it. A rich kid with a history of violence and mental illness can get a permit because his father has paid a medical professional to produce a report that gives the 'correct' results. Females are sometimes denied permits because one official mistakenly believes them too emotional to be trusted with arms.

Click to expand...

This is a moment where I feel good and bad. lol. I never thought about how to use the premise to intentially increase the drama. I just over think everything. Though I did have a moment in a story where something like this happens. Technically it is corruption but it happens for the good side.

See a military commander's friend asks for help. So she goes to a gun store and buys her a gun. It is claimed she has the authority to issue permits. The corruption part comes more from the fact she gets her a gun before filing the paperwork(though she does eventually do that) and well maybe the whole giving your friend a permit kind of thing.

In reflection it is kind of interesting in context because I do claim that corruption is a large problem in this area. So seeing a hero be corrupt with no bad intentions at heart is kind of neat.